So I turned my internet on this morning and this was the first thing that greeted my eyes: "Trial Underway In The Ariel Castro Kidnapping Case"

For those of you who don't remember or don't know, Ariel Castro was the man from Ohio who kidnapped three girls and held them for 10 years in his basement. He repeatedly raped them and forced miscarriages by hitting them in the stomach whenever one of the girls would get pregnant. They escaped when he forgot to lock the door to the basement when he left for work and the girls were able to get up into the living room and get somebody's attention.

So they have pretty much perfect proof that Ariel Castro was indeed the man who did this, and yet they're still taking him to trial. I would love to hear what the defense team's story will be on why Ariel Castro is innocent. I don't think it can be done.

I thought people would normally get put on trial if charged with serious crimes like these, even if they pleaded guilty. Even the possibility that somebody could get sentenced to death or many years in prison essentially just on their own confession strikes me as...halfway to a show trial.

Okay, there's overwhelming proof that Ariel Castro did keep those women captive for several years, and most likely he did play a role (perhaps a leading role) in their abductions, but the circumstances really should be looked into over the course of a trial. It's the same with the surviving Boston bomber.

That's what I was thinking, that in situations like this this they'd still go through with the trial, even if the person has confessed due to the overwhelming evidence.

I just can't help but wonder what would the defense try to do if he hadn't confessed? Paint him as insane and therefor not completely in control of his actions? Or try to play sympathy card that he had a really rough life?

That's what I was thinking, that in situations like this this they'd still go through with the trial, even if the person has confessed due to the overwhelming evidence.

I just can't help but wonder what would the defense try to do if he hadn't confessed? Paint him as insane and therefor not completely in control of his actions? Or try to play sympathy card that he had a really rough life?

I think it comes down to several factors. Castro knows there is ZERO chance of him getting out of going up the river. His choices are like.. living the rest of his life in prison or the needle. That is is. You know it, I know it, the guy on the street stopped at random knows it. Period.

So, if you're a DA or AG, would you waste time, effort, research and money to convict a man that is already toast. You can stick it to him as good as you can without forcing him giving up and demanding a trial. Several hundred years of prison time with the possibility of parole somewhere around 150 or so is better than trying to find 12 folks in his state who haven't heard of his offense that MIGHT let him go. Now he knows he's toast.. it's a matter of getting him a measure of security at this time.. since he cannot go into general pop.

That's what I was thinking, that in situations like this this they'd still go through with the trial, even if the person has confessed due to the overwhelming evidence.

That's not how our legal system works.

Once a defendant has arranged a plea bargain with the advice of counsel, the trial phase is over. During the sentencing phase, witnesses and victims may make testimony to the judge or jury (depending upon the case) to help influence the severity of the sentence, which is what is happening now with the Castro case.

Once a defendant has arranged a plea bargain with the advice of counsel, the trial phase is over. During the sentencing phase, witnesses and victims may make testimony to the judge or jury (depending upon the case) to help influence the severity of the sentence, which is what is happening now with the Castro case.

Mind you, his defense will have an opportunity to put on 'mitigating' evidence. They don't have to, but under the 'right to a defense' clause, they might. I'll admit, I'd be interested to see what he (either in his own words or through witnesses) has to say for himself.

You forget they likely considered the victims situations with a plea deal and life in prison without parole why put them thought this and I will add that sick bastard will not have an easy time in prison he from I can tell is a step above a baby killer in the food chain so he will be in likely in protective confinement - until he dies. If they stick him in general population someone will kill him.

You forget they likely considered the victims situations with a plea deal and life in prison without parole why put them thought this and I will add that sick bastard will not have an easy time in prison he from I can tell is a step above a baby killer in the food chain so he will be in likely in protective confinement - until he dies. If they stick him in general population someone will kill him.

Actually given his actions to induce miscarriages.. he IS a baby killer.

yeah.. he'll be spending the rest of his life in a mostly solitary state. Otherwise someone will kill him.

Yes I can see why the court wouldn't want to have to put the women on the witness stand for many hours, something that could easily have happened if there had been a proper trial. The women are the only living persons who could give anything like a full idea of what they went through, and except for Ms Berry they are in a fragile condition.

The alternative would have been to go through lots of forensic evidence retrieved from the house and to have detectives and forensic assistants testifying about the meaning of those photos and samples, their possible context etc; that would have been a long and difficult process - and could have gone a bit over the head of some of the jury (but hey, shouldn't it have been part of the trial even if one or more of the women had testified too?) Still, I think serious criminals of this kind (or their legal advisors) should not have the option of striking a plea bargain that basically shortcuts most of the trial.

I think in many countries, part of this trial, if it had included a long run-through of the abuse of the women and the traces that had been recovered, would have been held behind closed doors to protect the women. Would that have seemed unthinkable in Ohio, because the trial - however it turned out - was set to be such a news media event, and because "everyone" would somehow have wanted to see Castro and the women on tv?

I think in many countries, part of this trial, if it had included a long run-through of the abuse of the women and the traces that had been recovered, would have been held behind closed doors to protect the women. Would that have seemed unthinkable in Ohio, because the trial - however it turned out - was set to be such a news media event, and because "everyone" would somehow have wanted to see Castro and the women on tv?

That is largely what they do in the sentencing phase. And deals or not the judge does still have some say in what Mr. Castro gets. This case is pretty straight forward so a plea deal makes more sense. Of course as a fellow who works in psydo law enforcement I get kind of frustrated when I feel like my prosecutors are Monty Hall (google for those who do not know who that is.) What I mean is when I think I have stuck someone with something serious and they cut a deal and get a slap on the wrist it is frustrating.

He got life plus 1000 years, though I suspect, with good behavior, he can shave that in half.

I once read a story of the gangster Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, who had spent a few years on the run from the NYPD and the FBI - and from some fellow mobsters - after deep involvement in some narcotics trading, loan racketing and extortion, Finally someone in the mob, toigether with Walter Winchell, managed to negotiate a mutual deal with him and D.A. John Dewey, making Buchalter believe he would be treated as a crown witness, get tried himself only for some minor crimes and get a good plea bargain and a fresh start. So he.comes out of his hole and is driven into Manhattan by a mob bigwig, finally appearing on a rainy night with sunglasses and walking up to a black limo on a corner of Fifth Avenue. Inside are Dewey, Winchell and J. Edgar Hoover. Wincehll is at the stering wheel and opens to let the newcomer in. "Mr.Hoover, this is Lepke.""How do you do?""Glad to see you" Buchalter responds and slips down in the back seat next to Hoover. As soon as the car stars, Dewey begins addressing him, and poor Louis realizes that the guy who was going to give him an easy ride doesn't make any mention of the prospect of a bargain or a crown witness status - either he doesn't know or he isn't going to honour the deal - instead he's detailing crimes which he's already said in newspapers around the city would send him to jail for five hundred years. Winchell says nothing about this change of tack, just keeps driving.

"I wanted to get out of the car as soon as I heard that" Buchalter said some time later.

(Actually he would end up in the electric chair at Sing-Sing after they found four good murder charges against him)

If I recall right in the case of Lepke the history of it was Dewey never agreed to a deal. But Lepke's mob associates wanted him to take a fall since all the bad press he was generating was bad for business. So they told him the fix was in. He bought it well until he got into that particular car. Then the mob left him twisting in the breeze (almost literally other than he got the chair) since it took the heat off of them. Lepke's biggest claim to fame was he was one of the founders and later one of the largest customers of the group known is Murder Inc. Murder Inc. finally fell with the killing of Albert Anastasia who was know as the Mad Hatter or The Lord High Executioner.